Transcript of "New etops regulations"

1.
NEW
ETOPS REGULATIONS
CHET EKSTRAND
VICE PRESIDENT
REGULATORY AFFAIRS
BOEING COMMERCIAL AIRPLANES
MOHAN PANDEY
SENIOR MANAGER
OPERATIONAL REGULATORY AFFAIRS
BOEING COMMERCIAL AIRPLANES
Second-Quarter 2003 — April
Extended-range operations with two-engine
airplanes (ETOPS) rank among the safest and most
reliable of all flight operations. Pending rulemaking
by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration may
expand these reliability enhancements and operational protections to all extended-diversion-time
operations (i.e., flying on routes with the potential
for an extended diversion), not just those performed with two-engine airplanes. F L I G H T O P E R A T I O N S
As airplane range capabilities
continue to increase, flights across remote regions
of the world are becoming more common. The
global aviation community—which collaboratively
defined and proposed this U.S. rulemaking—
believes that applying ETOPS rules to all extendeddiversion-time operations will raise the industry to
a higher and uniform standard.
AERO
3

2.
O
n December 16, 2002,
the Aviation Rulemaking
Advisory Committee (ARAC)—
an advisory committee of the U.S.
Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)— presented to the FAA its
findings and recommendations on
extended operations (i.e., operations
on routes with the potential for
an extended-duration diversion).
Initiated by the FAA tasking statement of June 14, 2000, this proposed U.S. rulemaking marks the
culmination of more than two years
of global collaboration to review
current requirements for extendedrange operations with two-engine
airplanes (ETOPS) and propose
updated and standardized
requirements that will embrace
all extended-diversion-time operations, not just those performed
with two-engine airplanes.
The ARAC ETOPS Working
Group comprised expert representatives from many of the world’s
airlines, airframe and engine
manufacturers, pilots’ associations,
regulatory authorities, and nongovernmental organizations. In
keeping with its proposal that
the extended-operations protections
be applied broadly to protect all
airplanes, regardless of the number
of engines, the ETOPS Working
Group further recommended
that the term ETOPS itself be
redefined to simply mean extended
operations. (See “ARAC ETOPS
Working Group Participants,” p. 7.)
The FAA will evaluate the
proposed ARAC findings and
recommendations, make whatever
changes it deems appropriate, and
publish the results in a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
4
AERO
for public review and comment.
Following comment resolution,
the FAA is expected to enact new
extended-operations rules, perhaps
as soon as late 2004.
This article discusses the
reasons behind this global activity
and describes the specific regulatory changes that the ARAC
has proposed.
1
THE ETOPS PARADIGM SHIFT
When the conservative ETOPS
program began in 1985, its intent
was to ensure that the safety of
two-engine airplanes would match
that of three- and four-engine airplanes on long-range transoceanic
routes. Implicit in the ETOPS rules
was the initial assumption that
turbine-powered airplanes with
BOEING ETOPS ROUTES THROUGH SEPTEMBER 2002
FIGURE
29,000 ETOPS flights per month
■ 2,626,000 cumulative ETOPS flights
■ 94 current ETOPS operators
■
Second-Quarter 2003 — April

3.
two engines were inherently less
safe than those with three or more
engines. As a result, a separate set
of more stringent requirements was
deemed necessary for operating
two-engine airplanes on routes
with the potential for an extendedduration diversion.
Since then, however, extensive
ETOPS service experience has
brought about a profound revision
to that initial thinking. After nearly
two decades of highly successful
ETOPS around the world, the
global aviation community today
views ETOPS in a different light.
Characterizing this profound
data-driven paradigm shift are
the present-day industry perceptions that
1. ETOPS is the state of the art in
intercontinental air travel.
2. Engine reliability is no longer the
single focus of safety concerns.
3. A uniform standard is desirable
for all extended operations.
1
ETOPS IS THE STATE OF THE
ART IN INTERCONTINENTAL
AIR TRAVEL
ETOPS is the dominant mode of
transatlantic flight operations today
and accounts for a rapidly growing
component of transpacific and other
operations as well. Since 1985, more
than 3 million ETOPS flights have
been logged using the twinjets of
several manufacturers. Today, about
125 operators worldwide log an
additional 1,100 ETOPS flights each
day. Of this industry total, Boeing
twinjets alone have performed more
than 2.6 million ETOPS flights, and
94 Boeing operators fly nearly
1,000 more each day (fig. 1).
This vast service experience reveals
that ETOPS ranks among the safest
and most reliable of all flight operations. This success results from the
preclude and protect philosophy of
ETOPS, which enhances flight operations in two ways:
■ ETOPS-related design improvements
and maintenance practices increase
airplane systems and engine reliability, making it less likely that
an airplane will need to divert from
its intended course and land at an
alternate airport.
■
ETOPS operational requirements
introduce proactive measures that
protect the airplane, passengers, and
crew should a diversion occur.
This philosophy has indirectly benefited the entire industry. All commercial operations today — including
those performed with three- and fourengine airplanes — benefit from gains
in the reliability and robustness of
airplane engines and systems initially
achieved through ETOPS programs.
Second-Quarter 2003 — April
AERO
5

4.
Operators flying three- and fourengine airplanes are not currently
required to meet the high ETOPS
standard. Nevertheless, some operators
already comply with key ETOPS safety
enhancements on a voluntary basis.
This elective application of ETOPS
best practices suggests that the maintenance and operational benefits of
ETOPS are well recognized by the
global industry and that operators find
them cost effective.
2
ENGINE RELIABILITY IS NO
LONGER THE SINGLE FOCUS OF
SAFETY CONCERNS
In the past, concerns about flight safety
focused first and foremost on the reliability of propulsion systems. When
ocean-spanning commercial flight
operations began after World War II,
that narrow focus was appropriate in
light of the limited reliability of piston
engines. During the 1940s and 1950s,
in fact, piston engine–related events
were the predominant cause of airliner
accidents and contributed to a worldwide fleet hull-loss accident rate that
was some 60 times higher than today’s.
The limited reliability of piston
engines led to an operating restriction
being placed on two-engine airplanes
50 years ago. The intent of the
so-called 60-Minute Rule of 1953
(U.S. Federal Aviation Regulation
[FAR] 121.161) was to bar two-engine
propeller airplanes, such as the Douglas
DC-3, from flying extended routes then
more safely served by four-engine
propeller types, such as the DC-4. That
piston-era operating restriction remains
in effect at the time of this writing.
During the late 1950s, however, the
transition to turbine power brought
about a quantum leap in propulsion
system reliability. Engine reliability has
continued to improve in the jet age, so
much so that today’s high-bypass-ratio
fanjet engines are at least 50 times
more reliable than the large piston engines that inspired the 60-Minute Rule.
By the 1970s, advancing technology
had set the stage for two-engine,
turbine-powered airplanes to safely
6
AERO
exceed the 60-min operating restriction.
The result was ETOPS, which began in
1985 with 120-min diversion authority
and the requirement for an average
engine in-flight shutdown (IFSD) rate of
just 0.05 per 1,000 engine-hours. With
180-min ETOPS authority, which followed in 1988, an even more stringent
reliability target of just 0.02 IFSDs per
1,000 engine-hours was specified.
In this way, ETOPS drove manufacturers and operators alike to pursue
dramatic gains in propulsion system
reliability. The industry met this challenge and bettered it. During the past
few years, in fact, the average IFSD
rate of the worldwide 180-min ETOPS
So profound
has this trend been
that propulsion
reliabilities
unachievable just
15 years ago
are today routine
in the modern
twinjet fleet.
fleet has typically been at or below
0.01 IFSDs per 1,000 engine-hours —
twice the reliability required for such
operations. So profound has this trend
been that propulsion reliabilities unachievable just 15 years ago are today
routine in the modern twinjet fleet.
In light of these advances, and
because the safety and reliability of
two-engine airplanes equal or exceed
those of three- or four-engine airplanes,
the industry no longer views propulsion system reliability as the primary
safety and reliability concern in
extended operations. Instead, current
rulemaking recognizes that a variety
of airplane systems and operational
issues (e.g., cargo fire suppression
capability, weather conditions and
facilities at alternate airports) are
relevant to overall safety and reliability
on routes with the potential for an
extended diversion.
3
A UNIFORM STANDARD IS
DESIRABLE FOR ALL EXTENDED
OPERATIONS
All airplanes flown on extendeddiversion-time routes face similar operating challenges in terms of weather,
terrain, and limitations in navigation
and communications infrastructure.
Given that the operating environment
is common to all extended operations,
and that all categories of jetliner are
safe, the global aviation community
believes a uniform standard is desirable
for extended operations. The global
community further recognizes that
applying ETOPS requirements to all
airplanes — not just those with two
engines — will raise the industry to
a higher and uniform standard.
Although diversions are rare, any
airplane might someday need to divert
to an airport other than its intended
destination for various reasons (e.g.,
passenger illness, smoke in the flight
deck or cabin, turbulence, adverse
winds, weather, fuel leak, cargo fire,
in-flight engine failure or shutdown).
Thus, the dual ETOPS philosophy of
precluding diversions and protecting
the passengers, crew, and airplane on
those rare occasions when diversions
do occur is applicable to all extended
operations, not just those performed
with two-engine airplanes.
As a result of ETOPS, the industry
has achieved significant improvements
in the reliability and robustness of airplane engines and systems. However,
such efforts can never entirely prevent
diversions because most are unrelated
to the airplane, its systems, or its
engines. In fact, fewer than 10 percent
of all diversions during extended
operations are airplane related, and
fewer than 3 percent are the result of
an in-flight engine failure or shutdown.
In general, of course, engine failures
tend to occur during takeoff and initial
climb rather than during the cruise
phase of flight where ETOPS is flown.
Second-Quarter 2003 — April

5.
1
PROPOSED ARAC RULEMAKING AND GUIDANCE
TABLE
ETOPS
Modify existing rule FAR 121.161 to codify ETOPS in the U.S. federal aviation
authorization regulations; describe the redefinition of ETOPS and the updated requirements being
proposed for the authorization of all extended operations.
ARAC ETOPS WORKING
GROUP PARTICIPANTS
Definitions
Add a new rule, FAR 121.7, to add the definitions of ETOPS-applicable terms to ensure understanding of and compliance with the updated ETOPS requirements now being proposed.
AIRLINES
U.S.— American Airlines, American Trans
Air, Continental Airlines, Delta Air Lines,
Northwest Airlines, United Airlines,
United Parcel Service, and US Airways
Communications
Add a new rule requiring voice communications, where available, and the most reliable
communications technology, voice based or data link, for all extended operations beyond
180 min; require that another form of communications be available in case communication is not possible with the most reliable technology.
Non-U.S.—All Nippon Airways, along with
British Airways, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines,
and Scandinavian Airlines System, representing
the Association of European Airlines (AEA)
Dispatch
Add a new rule specifying dispatch or flight-release requirements for weather at ETOPS
alternate airports; further require that weather be updated at the start of the
ETOPS phase of flight to verify the continuing availability of a valid ETOPS alternate.
Propulsionrelated
diversions
Issue new guidance clarifying the requirements for twinjet diversion in the event of an
in-flight engine failure or shutdown; specify what factors shall and shall not be considered
sufficient justification for the crew to fly beyond the nearest suitable alternate airport.
Fuel reserve Add a new rule specifying the reserve fuel to be carried to protect the airplane in the
event of a cabin depressurization followed by an extended diversion at low altitude
to an alternate airport.
Maintenance Add a new rule making ETOPS maintenance standards applicable to all airplanes
flown in extended operations.
Passenger
recovery
plan
Modify existing rules FARs 121.135 and 121.97 to require all extended operators
to develop a plan that ensures the well-being of passengers at diversion airports
and provides for their safe retrieval without undue delay.
Modify existing rule FAR 121.415 to require training for crew members and dispatchers
in their roles and responsibilities in the operator’s passenger recovery plan.
Add a new rule requiring that ETOPS diversion times shall not exceed the time limit,
Cargo fire
suppression minus 15 min, specified in the Airplane Flight Manual for that airplane’s most
time-limited system, which is typically cargo fire suppression.
Performance Modify existing rule FAR 121.135 to require all ETOPS operators to have the
applicable performance data available to support their extended operations.
data
Polar
operations
Modify existing rule FAR 121.161 to define polar-area zones of ETOPS applicability
in which ETOPS requirements apply at all times. This requirement applies to all
operations north of 78°N latitude (North Pole) and south of 60°S latitude (South Pole).
Rescue and
fire fighting
Modify existing rule FAR 121.106 to require rescue and fire-fighting equipment
to be available at any airport designated as an ETOPS en route alternate.
Other
proposed
changes
Modify the rules governing transport-category airplane and engine design to
incorporate ETOPS enhancements that reduce the rate of airplane diversions and
protect airplanes when they divert.
PROPOSED U.S. REGULATORY CHANGES
This paradigm shift created growing
awareness around the world that
the regulatory framework currently
governing twinjet and other extended
operations should be reviewed.
Consequently, the FAA — which
Second-Quarter 2003 — April
meets its responsibility to update
regulations through the proven ARAC
process — initiated the collaborative
ARAC activity previously described.
The ARAC-proposed regulations
(table 1) might change as a result of
the current FAA review and pending
INDUSTRY ASSOCIATIONS
European Association of Aerospace
Industries (AECMA), General Aviation
Manufacturers Association (GAMA),
International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO), National Business Aviation
Association (NBAA), Air Transport
Association (ATA), National Air
Transportation Association (NATA),
National Air Carriers Association (NACA),
and International Federation of Air Line
Dispatchers’ Associations (IFALDA)
MANUFACTURERS
Airframe — Airbus Industrie, The Boeing
Company, Bombardier, Cessna, and Gulfstream
Engine — GE Aircraft Engines,
Pratt & Whitney, and Rolls-Royce
PILOTS’ ASSOCIATIONS
Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA),
Independent Association of Continental
Pilots (recently merged with ALPA),
Allied Pilots Association (APA), Coalition
of Airline Pilots Associations (CAPA),
International Federation of Air Line Pilots’
Associations (IFALPA)
REGULATORS
U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),
Transport Canada, Joint Aviation Authorities
(JAA) of Europe as represented by the U.K.
Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), Direction
Générale de l’Aviation Civile (DGAC) France,
and Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)
Australia
OTHER PARTIES
Air Crash Victims Families Association (ACVFA)
NPRM comment processes. We
at The Boeing Company are proud
to have participated in this global
ARAC effort, which will make flying
even safer and more reliable in the
coming years. Pages 8 through 10
detail the proposed changes.
AERO
7

6.
ETOPS Authorization
The ARAC has recommended that FAR 121.161 (the
60-Minute Rule) and associated guidance and advisory
material be revised to
■ Establish the basis and requirements for operating
twin-engine, turbine-powered airplanes beyond
60 min of flying time (at single-engine cruise speed
with no wind and in standard conditions) of an adequate
alternate airport.
■ Apply this same regulatory framework to the operation
of turbine-powered airplanes with more than two engines
beyond 180 min (at one-engine-inoperative cruise speed
with no wind and in standard conditions) of an adequate
alternate airport, and also make it applicable to all operations in polar areas (see Polar Operations, p. 10).
■
Make the designed and certified operating capabilities of
the airplane type the basis for determining the maximum
diversion authority of that type.
■
Define allowable diversion authorizations for different
regions of the world based on the overall operational
needs of each region.
■
Apply current ETOPS best practices to all extended
operations.
It should be noted that, although these proposed ETOPS
requirements are consistent for all jetliners, the threshold
varies at which they would take effect. For two-engine
airplanes operating under FAR Part 121, ETOPS will be
in effect — as is currently the case — on routes where the
airplane is at some point more than 60 min flying time
from an alternate airport. For FAR Part 121 operations by
airplanes with three or more engines, these new ETOPS
rules will apply on routes that are at some point more than
180 min from an alternate airport. They also will apply to
all operations in the polar regions (i.e., the areas north of
78°N latitude and south of 60°S latitude).
Definitions
The ARAC has proposed that ETOPS-applicable definitions
be added to FAR Part 121. Many of the terms used in the new
regulations and guidance material for ETOPS are unique to
extended operations and demand precise definition to ensure
common understanding and proper compliance.
To encompass all extended-diversion-time operations, not
just those flown with two-engine airplanes, the term ETOPS
would be redefined as extended operations (as used in this
article) and shall no longer mean extended-range operations
with two-engine airplanes. Another noteworthy change is the
addition of the term ETOPS alternate, which is an airport
that meets stated requirements for planned diversion use and
at which the weather conditions are at or above the operating
minimums specified for a safe landing. This new term would
replace the current ETOPS term suitable, which denotes
an alternate airport that is both above required weather
8
AERO
minimums and available for diversion use. Under the new
rules, suitable would no longer have an ETOPS-specific
meaning; where it appears in the new regulations and associated guidance material, therefore, it should be interpreted
only according to its broadly accepted, everyday definition.
It should be noted that long-range operations (LROPS)
is not proposed as an ETOPS term. Although used by some
segments of the global industry, LROPS currently does
not appear or have legal standing in the FARs. The ARAC
ETOPS Working Group did not propose adding LROPS
because the term would be misleading — extended operations are defined by distance to an alternate airport, not by
overall length of flight — and because it invites confusion
with the similar but unrelated term ultra-long-range
operations, which deals primarily with flight crew duty
time, crew rest, and other human-factors issues.
Communications
Current regulations require reliable communications. Recognizing that advances in technology occur and that verbal
communications can be particularly valuable, the proposed
rule promotes the adoption of voice communications for
extended operations.
This proposed rule states that the most reliable communications technology—voice based or data link—shall
be installed in all airplanes operating beyond 180 min from
an alternate airport. Alternative means of communication
must also be available in the event the most reliable means
is not available for any reason (e.g., lack of satellite coverage).
Examples of these communications technologies (e.g.,
SATCOM voice link, SATCOM data link, HF data link)
are given in the associated guidance material.
The proposed rule is not intended to require operators to
continually upgrade existing installations on an incremental
basis. Rather, the rule is meant to further the adoption, as
appropriate, of new technologies that significantly enhance
the quality and reliability of communications. One example
of such innovation is today’s transition from HF radio to
satellite-based technologies.
Dispatch
The ARAC has proposed a new regulation specifying
airplane dispatch requirements for ETOPS alternate airports.
The operator would have to select en route alternate
airports that meet the weather requirements set forth in its
operations specifications.
Because alternate airport weather is checked before airplane departure, and weather conditions can vary over time,
the conservative weather minimums required for dispatch
are higher than those that would be required to perform an
instrument approach at that alternate airport. As proposed,
this dispatch rule further requires the crew to verify the
continuing availability of a valid alternate airport by means
of en route weather updating at the beginning of the ETOPS
phase of flight. For this en route updating, the crew would
be required to ascertain only that the planned alternate is
Second-Quarter 2003 — April

7.
above normal landing minimums, not above the higher
minimums applied before dispatch.
One of the distinguishing features of ETOPS is the
identification of and reliance on alternate airports to which
airplanes can divert should an unscheduled landing become
desirable or necessary. Under this proposed regulation, operators flying three- and four-engine airplanes in extended
operations would be required to designate ETOPS alternate
airports within 240 min, or if beyond 240 min, designate the
nearest available ETOPS alternate.
Propulsion-Related Diversions
The ARAC has proposed no substantive change to the rule
that governs diversion following an in-flight engine failure
or shutdown. However, the committee did offer guidance
to further clarify existing diversion requirements for twoengine airplanes in the event of engine failure or shutdown.
To aid flight crews, the proposed guidance lists factors
(e.g., airplane condition and systems status, weather conditions en route, terrain and facilities at the alternate airport)
that the pilot in command should consider when deciding
which alternate airport to divert to. To ensure that safety
always remain paramount, the ARAC further identified
factors that shall not be considered sufficient justification
for flying beyond the nearest available alternate airport (e.g.,
additional range capability based on remaining fuel supply,
passenger accommodations beyond basic safety, maintenance and repair facilities at the available alternate airports).
Fuel Reserve
The ARAC has proposed that all airplanes flown in extended
operations shall carry an ETOPS fuel reserve to protect
the passengers, crew, and airplane in the event of a cabin
depressurization followed by a low-altitude diversion.
Cabin depressurization is a very rare event that can occur
on any jetliner and is largely unrelated to the number of
engines. If it does occur, the flight crew must immediately
descend to an appropriate altitude, as defined by oxygen
availability or oxygen systems capability. A diversion
is then generally required because of the increased fuel
consumption of turbine engines at low altitudes and the
corresponding reduction in range.
This ETOPS fuel reserve requirement assumes that
decompression would occur at the most critical point along
the route in terms of total fuel consumption (a concurrent
engine failure is further assumed if it would add to the total).
The reserve thus calculated would ensure sufficient fuel for
an extended low-altitude diversion followed by a descent
to 1,500 ft at the alternate airport, a 15-min hold, and
an approach and landing. Further allowance is made for
possible airframe icing and wind forecasting error.
Following extensive review of data related to the accuracy
of wind forecasting, as well as review of the icing scenario
based on the Canadian Atlantic Storms Program (CASP II),
the ARAC proposed revising the ETOPS fuel reserve
requirement. Under this proposed rule, two-engine airplanes
Second-Quarter 2003 — April
on extended operations would carry somewhat less reserve
fuel than in the past. Airplanes with more than two engines
would be required to carry an ETOPS fuel reserve for the
first time, although many three- and four-engine operators
do currently carry a depressurization fuel reserve as a matter
of internal airline policy.
Maintenance
The ARAC has proposed making current twin-engine ETOPS
maintenance standards applicable to all airplanes flown in
extended operations. This would require three- and fourengine operators to also have an ETOPS maintenance
program in place before flying routes with the potential for
an extended diversion.
ETOPS maintenance requirements have significantly reduced the incidence of in-flight engine failures. Such events
can be enormously costly and disruptive for airlines, which is
why some operators of three- and four-engine airplanes have
already voluntarily raised their maintenance standards to
ETOPS levels.
Passenger Recovery Plan
The ARAC has proposed that all extended operators shall
develop a plan to ensure the well-being of passengers and
crewmembers at diversion airports. This plan should address
their safety and comfort at that airport in terms of the facilities
and accommodations and their retrieval from that airport.
Currently, passenger recovery plans are required only
for cross-polar operations. Because diversions can occur
anywhere, however, the ARAC has proposed that every
operator flying routes over remote areas of the world
should anticipate the possibility of a diversion within those
regions and devise a plan outlining how it would recover
the passengers, crew, and airplane.
Cargo Fire Suppression
To further ensure safety, the ARAC has proposed that all
time-critical systems aboard airplanes flown in extended
operations shall have sufficient capability to protect the
airplane throughout the longest potential diversion for that
route. In particular, each flight shall have continuous fire
suppression capability for a period equivalent to the maximum planned diversion time plus an additional 15 min to
cover approach and landing at the alternate airport.
Two-engine airplanes flown in extended operations have
met this requirement since 1985. In contrast, although all
jets have fire suppression systems, those with more than two
engines are not currently required to carry sufficient fire suppressant during extended operations to protect the airplane
continuously throughout a maximum-duration diversion.
The ARAC has proposed that three- and four-engine airplane operators that do not currently comply with this requirement shall have six years after ETOPS regulations take effect
to bring their existing fleets into compliance with this new rule.
Many airplane systems enhance safety during flight. Of
these, cargo fire suppression is generally the most time-limited.
AERO
9

8.
Proposed changes (continued)
Applying ETOPS cargo fire suppression requirements to all
extended operations can thus further protect passengers, crews,
and airplanes on routes with extended diversion times.
Performance Data
The ARAC has proposed that existing regulations be modified
to require that performance data be available to support all
phases of extended operations. Flight crews and dispatchers
must have data available that describe the specific performance
of the airplane in normal and non-normal situations, including
those that might be encountered during an extended diversion.
Polar Operations
The ARAC has recommended that the North Polar area
(i.e., everything north of 78°N latitude) shall be designated
an area of ETOPS applicability. The same designation
shall be applied to the South Pole and surrounding region
(i.e., everything south of 60°S latitude).
Within these areas, ETOPS requirements shall apply to
all airplanes, regardless of the number of engines or distance
from an adequate airport. This proposed requirement recognizes the challenges associated with these areas and sets
forth steps to protect diversion.
Polar operators require training and expertise to support
airplane diversions and their subsequent recovery. These
operators must consider requirements for en route alternate
airports, a strategy for and monitoring of fuel freeze, a passenger recovery plan, and reliable communications capability.
Rescue and Fire Fighting
The ARAC has proposed a rule specifying rescue and fire
fighting (RFF) requirements at ETOPS en route alternate
airports. If adopted, this rule will further ensure the safety
of all airplanes when flying extended operations, regardless
of how many engines an airplane has.
Before dispatch, ETOPS operators have always had to
designate alternate airports that are above ETOPS-specified
weather minimums. In addition, these designated alternates
must provide the necessary facilities and equipment to ensure
the safety and well-being of the passengers and crew throughout an extended diversion, after landing at the alternate airport,
and for as long as they remain at that airport before being
retrieved. RFF capability is a key element of this protection.
During nearly two decades of ETOPS and more than
three million ETOPS twinjet flights around the globe,
there has not been a single landing accident following an
extended diversion from the ETOPS phase of flight. The
fact that RFF services have not been needed does not
OTHER INDUSTRY EFFORTS
In addition to this ETOPS-related
ARAC–FAA rulemaking, the European
Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) are
developing standards for extended
operations. In light of the ARAC, JAA,
10
AERO
mean that such an event will never happen. Therefore, the
ARAC finds it prudent to formalize RFF requirements for
alternate airports in the regulations.
Other Proposed Changes
The proposed regulatory changes described above would
affect FAR Part 121, the section of the FARs governing
the operation of transport-category airplanes. In response
to the FAA tasking statement, the ARAC ETOPS Working
Group also has proposed changes to other parts of
the FARs.
In particular, the ARAC has proposed changes to FAR
Part 25, which governs the design and testing of transportcategory airplanes, and FAR Part 33, which governs engine
design and testing. If adopted, these regulatory modifications
will benefit the development of future transport airplanes —
regardless of the number of engines—by formalizing
ETOPS-inspired improvements that have been shown in
service to further protect airplanes and reduce the likelihood
that they will need to divert.
The ARAC has further recommended that operators must
comply with all rules within FAR Parts 25 and 33 when
considering the longest flight and longest diversion time
for which approval is sought. The rigor of this practice will
ensure that all airplanes designed to these requirements
will have the necessary redundancy and reliability to ensure
safe extended operations.
To further protect airplanes during extended operations,
the ARAC has identified the factors that ensure high levels
of safety on flights with the potential for a long diversion.
In the case of two-engine airplanes, the most significant
element is propulsion system reliability.
Using several methods to assess risk, the ARAC concluded that diversion time can be significantly increased
without added risk if the IFSD rate is sufficiently low. An
IFSD rate of 0.01 per 1,000 engine-hours—or twice the
engine reliability level required for 180-min ETOPS—has
been determined to allow unconstrained operations with
two-engine airplanes. Currently, the world-fleet average
IFSD rates for the 767 and 777, which together perform
the majority of ETOPS, are both below this threshold.
Other key elements that support extended diversion times
are proper testing and validation of an airplane type (i.e.,
airframe-engine combination) to ensure ETOPS safety at
service entry. The Boeing 777 Early ETOPS program
processes provided a successful template on which to base
future such programs. Consequently, the design, analysis,
and test features from the 777 Early ETOPS program are
incorporated in the proposed ETOPS regulations.
and other efforts taking place around the
world, the International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO) — a branch of
the United Nations — is reviewing the
current annexes and associated guidance materials and plans to propose
changes as appropriate for all airplanes.
The Boeing Company supports the
harmonization of aviation standards
among regulatory authorities
worldwide and actively supports these
JAA and ICAO efforts.
Second-Quarter 2003 — April

9.
About the Authors
SUMMARY
As airplane range capabilities
continue to increase, and flights
become more common in remote
regions of the world, expanding
ETOPS to embrace all extendeddiversion-time operations — not
only those involving two-engine
airplanes — will raise the industry
to a higher and uniform standard.
The proposed U.S. ETOPS regulations reflect broad recognition
within the global aviation community that ETOPS-related practices
can further enhance the safety
and reliability of all operations
on routes with extended diversion
times. The proposed rules recognize
the high standard of safety that
has been achieved during nearly
two decades of highly successful
twinjet operations worldwide
and are the next logical step in
enhancing aviation safety.
The FAA will evaluate these
ARAC-proposed regulations, make
whatever changes it deems appropriate, and publish the results
in an NPRM for public review and
comment. After comment resolution, the FAA is expected to enact
the new ETOPS rules, perhaps as
soon as late 2004.
Capt. Chester
“Chet” Ekstrand
is vice president in
charge of Regulatory
Affairs for Boeing
Commercial Airplanes.
He is responsible for
issues and initiatives
related to operational
safety and serves
as the company’s
focal for ETOPS.
Capt. Ekstrand’s
expertise in working
with the industry and regulatory authorities worldwide contributed significantly to the
precedent-setting early ETOPS certification of the 777. Former positions include vice president
of Communication, Navigation, Surveillance/Air Traffic Management and Extended-Range
Twin-Engine Operations; vice president of Government and Industry Technical Affairs; director
of Flight Crew Operations; chief pilot, flight training; and chief pilot, technical.
Mohan Pandey, senior manager of Operational Regulatory Affairs, has played a key role
in almost every ETOPS operational issue. He led Boeing participation in the ARAC ETOPS
Working Group and currently serves as a member of the JAA and ICAO ETOPS committees as
well as the JAA Operational Steering Team. Mr. Pandey is a 30-year veteran of the aviation
industry and has held a variety of positions since joining Boeing in 1980.
Second-Quarter 2003 — April
AERO
11